· Private foundation
The Esther a & Joseph Klingenstein Fund Inc
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k7 grants · $29k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $103k
- $50k–250k80 grants · $8.6M
- $250k+2 grants · $500k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY INC | $250,000 |
| THE ACADEMY IN MANAYUNK DBA AIM ACADEMY | $250,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT RSO) | $200,000 |
| STANFORD UNIVERSITY-OSR | $200,000 |
| THE NISKANEN CENTER INC | $200,000 |
| 617 EDUCATION INC | $200,000 |
| MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO | $200,000 |
| PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (EC) | $200,000 |
| CHILD CARE AWARE OF AMERICA | $200,000 |
| LENA FOUNDATION | $200,000 |
| VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY | $200,000 |
| NEW YORK UNIVERSITY NYULMC RESEARCH ACCOUNT | $200,000 |
| THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD | $175,000 |
| ZERO TO THREE | $150,000 |
| HEALTH FEDERATION OF PHILADELPHIA | $150,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY23–24, $850k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 76% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +13% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
34 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 36 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.2M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
HEALTH FEDERATION OF PHILADELPHIA INC2× · 2023–2024 · $750k · revenue +13%
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY INC2× · 2023–2024 · $450k · revenue +25%
BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC2× · 2023–2024 · $450k · revenue +21%
Funded once
- RUREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIAone grant, 2023 · $225k
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITYone grant, 2023 · $225k · revenue +6%- YUYALE UNIVERSITY - SPONSORED PROJECT FINANCIAL ADMIone grant, 2023 · $100k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.
Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
Education and Research
Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…
Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Council On Teacher Quality Inc and the most unlike its peers is Stowers Institute for Medical Research. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 43 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
52 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 52 of the 100 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds HEALTH FEDERATION OF PHILADELPHIA INC ↗
- Who funds ZERO TO THREE NATIONAL CENTER FOR INFANTS TODDLERS AND FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY INC ↗
- Who funds BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE NISKANEN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Vanderbilt University ↗
- Who funds LENA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Family Connects International ↗
- Who funds COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CHILD CARE AWARE OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: WK Kellogg Foundation · Pritzker Family Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Irving Harris Foundation · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Gates Foundation · Valhalla Foundation · Alliance for Early Success Fka Birth to Five Policy Alliance · Turrell Fund · Northwestern University · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · New Venture Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Esther a & Joseph Klingenstein Fund Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Nature Forward — 32% of income from government
- Connecticut Council for Philanthropy — 24% of income from government
- Max Planck Florida Corporation — 23% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
- All Our Kin Inc — 1% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Esther a & Joseph Klingenstein Fund Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Esther a & Joseph Klingenstein Fund Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.